In Tunisia, the Jasmine Revolution showed the vulnerability of unpopular and
anti-democratic regimes.

Despite Western backing, President Ben Ali, who ruled
with an iron fist for 23 years, was ousted quickly and decisively by his people.

For Lamis Andoni of Al Jazeera, this is a message to other tyrants in the Arab
world that they are not immune from popular anger.

The revolution again confronts the West with a never-ending dilemma.

For realists in international politics, power is favored over principle, near-term
trumps long-term, and the internal affairs of other states are their own business.

However, the values of democracy, human rights, and law are the rhetoric of
Western policy.

In Tunisia the dilemma is obvious. Political Islam is thought by many to be
inherently anti-democratic, for example the election of an Islamic government
means "one man, one vote, but only one time."

Journalist Roger Cohen of the The New York Times has a different take.
He writes that in the Arab world, the West tries to contain political Islam,
which requires passive or active support of corrupt, repressive, unpopular,
authoritarian governments.

The Jasmine Revolution raises serious doubts about the sustainability of these
unpopular regimes, and questions the wisdom of the West's close ties to "friendly
tyrants."

Cohen argues that the U.S. should support democratic transformation in Tunisia
and elsewhere, even if it means freedom to political Islamic movements.

What do you think? Should the West support authoritarian regimes to contain
political Islam? Should it watch popular passions erect potentially anti-democratic
governments? Is there a third alternative?